Like so much these days, it’s a Rorschach test (even if it’s inadvertently) - like the Nunes memo and countless vague and confusing verbal brainfarts from Trump, people see what they want to see. Seems safe to say the truth is it’s just one more shart puddle to add to the “swamp”.

Dems are poised to gain quite a few seats in the House, probably a better than 50% chance of retaking it, but it’s extremely unlikely they’re retaking the Senate:

“it was like watching a dog order a pizza over the phone”

OH THE HUMANITY

Christ on a cracker...

Who’da thunk? (besides any human being capable of rational thought of course.)

yep, i think i mentioned that, and probably rightfully so... i think the solution is obvious although not necessarily easy, especially in a lily-white region of the country: make genuine connections with people of color, don’t just pretend to give a shit for self-serving reasons.

I think Patriots-Redskins (due to the obvious racism of naming a team after a racial slur, of course) would be even worse, but sure

oof... as much as we all like to joke, this goes a little too far for me.

Maybe. On one hand I’m sure she has valuable experience on “tactics” to “get things done” - what works and what doesn’t, that kind of thing. On the other hand, I really don’t trust her to be “objective” about what’s reasonable, what’s popular, what the people really want, what will be good for the party, etc.

I’m a little confused by the pronouns here. No wait, I’m not: “she” is obviously Clinton, “they” = deplorables, and “we” is us. Right?

Oof, that truly is damning. I don’t remember the Rich pardon scandal well at all, but I probably wasn’t paying as much attention to the news. Plus, he was on his way out and for some reason I honestly thought questionable pardons were just de rigueur for presidents at the end of their terms - not that they should be,…

Total classic :)

Ok i know it’s overused, but in my defense there’s no question I used it correctly here! i wasn’t using it for emphasis or hyperbolically or in a case where x “literally” y would be physically impossible (ex. “I’M DEAD”) or anything like that, and I think that’s where a huge majority of the backlash is coming from.

I mean, it could have happened easily, and it wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) surprise me if it did, but it didn’t.

Fair enough. not sure how high that ranks in their motivation to stand by Trump - I’m still guessing they’re supporting him because he (mostly, for now) supports their agenda, and the rest of what I said - but I may be wrong. I’m certainly no insider, and I don’t even follow the news as close as a lot of other people.

You know, for the past 2+ hours I actually haven’t had to deal with a single one somehow, and if they start at some point I figure I’ll just ignore them. Likewise I feel like I’ve done a good job steering clear of the whole incessant “You dipshit BernieBros are the reason Hillary lost” vs. “Clinton was the worst…

Maybe. I feel like the definition of “troll” has gotten stretched so far or watered down that I’m starting to get a little annoyed. Like people who say “literally” as a way of denoting emphasis, or call something “ironic” when “apt” or “fitting” or “serendipitous” would be more appropriate. The “original” definition…

I think that’s a big reason. I think another reason is that they don’t want to (further) divide the GOP, they don’t wanna get on the wrong side of their base. McConnell in particular has been great at enforcing unity/conformity on the national level, especially as far as voting, but no one in the GOP wants the party…